St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1887-11-05
A PECULIAR CASE.
MRS. WATSON IS NOT SATISFIED
WITH THE COMPROMISE.
She Will Renew Her Suit for One-fifth of
the Estate of Her Grandfather, John An
derson, of Tobacco Fame-Over a Mil
lion and a Half Dollars at Stake.

Mary Maud Watson, of Hartford
Windsor county, VT, granddaughter o
Tobacconist John Anderson, of Tarry
town, who sued for a one-tifth slice O.
her grandfather's $S,000,O0O estate, ha:
decided not to retire from the fight will
$4,000. Such at least is the report tha
is current. The facts are these:
Old John Anderson was a Scotchmar
who came to the United States, opened
tobacco-shop and made a success by
selling Macaboy snuff. His store was
made uncommonly attractive by the in
{ PRODUCTION of Mary Rogers, a beautiful
girl, as clerk. She was belle for the
smokers and a powerful adjunct to the
shrewd Scotchman's establishment. The
sudden disappearance of the pretty
tobacconist and the finding of her body
in New Jersey with incontestable proof
of murder was the sensation of the day.
Subsequently Poe immortalized her in
one of his literary productions. The
tragedy was a trying ordeal
for John Anderson, but he passed
through it safely and continued
his business successfully. When the
Mexican war broke out General Scott
was at a loss to know how his tobacco
supply was to be kept fresh. In talk
with Anderson the question was dis
cussed in way that made the Scotch
man put on his thinking cap. AS re-
suit he invented the tinfoil cover as
preserver and began the manufacture of
Anderson's "Solace" The invention
met with popular approval, and the
Scotchman's fortune was only matter
of time. He gathered in the dollars
until they rolled into the thousands and
swelled to be millions, until when he
died on November %, 1881, his estate was
estimated to be worth $S,O00,000.
Anderson, when he died, was then liv-
ing with second wife, and he left two
children by his first wife. He had made
several wills, but not long before his
death he executed one which left his
, son, John Charles Anderson, residuary
legatee and cut off the other heirs with
comparatively insignificant legacies.
One of them was Mary Maud Watson,
the daughter Of Mary L. Carr, who was
the daughter of John Anderson. When
the will was presented in the Surrogate's
Court for probate Mary Maud, after an
interview with her uncle, John Charles
Anderson, assented to the proceeding.
She said that her uncle promised
if she did not contest the will that
she should receive one-ffth of
the vast estate. Whether that statement
is true or not the fact is that she did not
get the amount. She was married to AL |
fred L. Watson a law student with ex-
Governor Samuel E. Pingree, of Yer
mont. Some time after the marriage ex-
Judge George M. Curtis, of New York,
was induced to take an active interest in |
behalf of Mrs. Watson's alleged claim |
against her grandfather's estate. Mean
while, John Charles Anderson, residuary |
legatee and executor of the Anderson es-
tate, sold to John D. Phyfe and James
Campbell, of New York, twelve lots on
Fifty-ninth street and the Fifth-avenue
plaza, on which they began the erection
of what is now known as the Plaza Hotel.
The improved property is believed to be
worth 81 ,200,O 600
Mrs. Watson, having assented to the
probate OF the will, ex-Judge Curtis saw
that it would be folly to begin an action
brought an eiectment suit against Phyfe
and Campbell, in the name of Mrs.
Watson. AS the purchasers of the
block of land had received a clear title
to the real estate, they communicated
with John Charles Anderson, and he at
once assumed the responsibility of de-
Tending the action in the name of Phyfe
and Campbell. The suit naturally
brought up the question as to the
validity of the will. The case was tried
before Judge Van Brunt, and he took
the case from the jury and decided
against Mary Maud Watson. She was
not satisfied, and under the advice
of ex-Judge Curtis appealed to the
General Term of the Supreme Court. The
case was tried in the Supreme Court, cir
cult, before Judge Lawrence, and jury
gave verdict in favor of the plaintiff,
which, practically, broke the probate of
the will. John G. Anderson was as
and ordered an appeal to the
General Term. Pending that appeal he
also made another move to circumvent
the litigant. He brought bill in equity
last summer asking the Supreme Court
in Westchester county to construe the
real estate clauses of the will. Recently
that action was transferred to the Circuit
Court of the United States While the
whole litigation was in statu quo the pro-
position for final settlement was injected.
The presumption is that it came from
,he Anderson side of the fight. Toward
,he last of September Messrs. North and
Wagstaff, Of North, Ward & Wagstaff ;
sx-Judge Curtis, Mary Maud Watson and
ner husband, and Ex-Governor Pingree
net at a hotel in White River Junction,
VT, and discussed the terms. Mrs. Wat |
ION was paid $4,000 and she signed |
,uit-claim deed. 1t was also signed by
ler husband, by Mr.. North, and by ex-
Governor Pingree. Thedeed was executed
IN September 2S, and was filed in the reg
ster's office in New York on October 10.
& releases for the nominal consideration
If 81 all the claim, right and title forever
If Mrs. Watson and her husband or their
leirs, in the Plaza property. The trans
.ction, however, can have no effect on
he bill of equity, and if the decision is i
n Mrs. Watson's favor she will be en-
tiled to her share of the estate.